Calcasieu Relative Condition Factor Study 2012 Preliminary Results

[PUREBAY2200]

Obviously the result of "research" is equal to the result of votes...... The state and WL&F do as they want .
Mathgeek can tell ya; statistics and research can be manipulated to mean opposites.
2 researches can draw 2 different conclusions ( and back them upbwith validity)using the same research & statistics.

[PUREBAY2200]

In Louisiana...... Politics rule.... Statistics drool.... Just how it is.

[Kajundave]

I will say you have a valid point!

[Duck Butter]

Couple things here

1. MG seems to be a very smart fella and I like how he includes his family into all his activities and studies, and I wish I had half the knowledge of statistics and experimental design that he has.

2. I am 100% for the limit being switched back to 25 and will gladly speak or write letters or do whatever it takes to get this changed.

3. "W" is very passionate about this, but is just flat out going about this the wrong way, a one week study or somebody's opinion is not going to do anything. The way to do this is to go to the LWFC and tell them that our fisheries should be managed by professionals and not the opinions of the few. I am fighting this right now on Lake D'arbonne.

4. I have NEVER seen a trout eat another trout. They DO however eat each other if other food supplies are not available - this is probably a good thing that trout are not eating one another as it shows there is 'plenty of bait'. I have also seen thousands of deer, but have honestly never seen one drink water but it happens

5. Science is never just accepted as fact, no matter how many studies are done, it takes long-term studies to show the best results. The world was once thought to be flat, the sun was thought to rotate around the earth, etc. Jeff P may be on the water more than anyone but that does not mean he is right in his opinion, that is all that is is an opinion. Here is another - 90% of climate scientists (experts) think that man attributes to climate change I ain't touching that one though.

6. Where in the world did the 40% reduction in trout come from? Just because one person or three people who fish all the time caught 40% less that year, means nothing, zero. You would have to be at every ramp and check every single fisherman year after year to get those numbers. A 40 % reduction would mean that the average angler that catches say 10 fish each outing is now only catching 6, or the one who catches 5 is now catching 3, no way to show those numbers. Again, there are not ANY numbers that can attribute the limit reduction to smaller fish, larger fish, more bait, etc without many long-term studies. The best thing here would be to go to the commission or congressman and say 'we' want fisheries to be managed by the professionals and if it ain't broke don't try and fix it.

just saying that if "w" wants to go in 'guns a blazin' to a LWFC meeting and present hard core 'facts' this ain't exactly the study to bring up, they want long-term, as I would want as well. If someone showed me a one week study and wanted something changed because of those numbers I would want a little more data (not knocking this study, i know its just preliminary but at least its something). I would want to see several thousands of fish measured for several years, and I would not measure females during this time as their weights are highly variable during spawning season, and also would definitely want to know the AGE of the fish, because if the fish that were measured last year averaged one year old and 12" as opposed to one year old and 9" this year, then you may have something but without knowing the age of the fish, we can't really assume much

[jchief]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Couple things here

1. MG seems to be a very smart fella and I like how he includes his family into all his activities and studies, and I wish I had half the knowledge of statistics and experimental design that he has.

2. I am 100% for the limit being switched back to 25 and will gladly speak or write letters or do whatever it takes to get this changed.

3. "W" is very passionate about this, but is just flat out going about this the wrong way, a one week study or somebody's opinion is not going to do anything. The way to do this is to go to the LWFC and tell them that our fisheries should be managed by professionals and not the opinions of the few. I am fighting this right now on Lake D'arbonne.

4. I have NEVER seen a trout eat another trout. They DO however eat each other if other food supplies are not available - this is probably a good thing that trout are not eating one another as it shows there is 'plenty of bait'. I have also seen thousands of deer, but have honestly never seen one drink water but it happens

5. Science is never just accepted as fact, no matter how many studies are done, it takes long-term studies to show the best results. The world was once thought to be flat, the sun was thought to rotate around the earth, etc. Jeff P may be on the water more than anyone but that does not mean he is right in his opinion, that is all that is is an opinion. Here is another - 90% of climate scientists (experts) think that man attributes to climate change I ain't touching that one though.

6. Where in the world did the 40% reduction in trout come from? Just because one person or three people who fish all the time caught 40% less that year, means nothing, zero. You would have to be at every ramp and check every single fisherman year after year to get those numbers. A 40 % reduction would mean that the average angler that catches say 10 fish each outing is now only catching 6, or the one who catches 5 is now catching 3, no way to show those numbers. Again, there are not ANY numbers that can attribute the limit reduction to smaller fish, larger fish, more bait, etc without many long-term studies. The best thing here would be to go to the commission or congressman and say 'we' want fisheries to be managed by the professionals and if it ain't broke don't try and fix it.

just saying that if "w" wants to go in 'guns a blazin' to a LWFC meeting and present hard core 'facts' this ain't exactly the study to bring up, they want long-term, as I would want as well. If someone showed me a one week study and wanted something changed because of those numbers I would want a little more data (not knocking this study, i know its just preliminary but at least its something). I would want to see several thousands of fish measured for several years, and I would not measure females during this time as their weights are highly variable during spawning season, and also would definitely want to know the AGE of the fish, because if the fish that were measured last year averaged one year old and 12" as opposed to one year old and 9" this year, then you may have something but without knowing the age of the fish, we can't really assume much

^^^^^
This

["W"]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Couple things here

1. MG seems to be a very smart fella and I like how he includes his family into all his activities and studies, and I wish I had half the knowledge of statistics and experimental design that he has.

2. I am 100% for the limit being switched back to 25 and will gladly speak or write letters or do whatever it takes to get this changed.

3. "W" is very passionate about this, but is just flat out going about this the wrong way, a one week study or somebody's opinion is not going to do anything. The way to do this is to go to the LWFC and tell them that our fisheries should be managed by professionals and not the opinions of the few. I am fighting this right now on Lake D'arbonne.

4. I have NEVER seen a trout eat another trout. They DO however eat each other if other food supplies are not available - this is probably a good thing that trout are not eating one another as it shows there is 'plenty of bait'. I have also seen thousands of deer, but have honestly never seen one drink water but it happens

5. Science is never just accepted as fact, no matter how many studies are done, it takes long-term studies to show the best results. The world was once thought to be flat, the sun was thought to rotate around the earth, etc. Jeff P may be on the water more than anyone but that does not mean he is right in his opinion, that is all that is is an opinion. Here is another - 90% of climate scientists (experts) think that man attributes to climate change I ain't touching that one though.

6. Where in the world did the 40% reduction in trout come from? Just because one person or three people who fish all the time caught 40% less that year, means nothing, zero. You would have to be at every ramp and check every single fisherman year after year to get those numbers. A 40 % reduction would mean that the average angler that catches say 10 fish each outing is now only catching 6, or the one who catches 5 is now catching 3, no way to show those numbers. Again, there are not ANY numbers that can attribute the limit reduction to smaller fish, larger fish, more bait, etc without many long-term studies. The best thing here would be to go to the commission or congressman and say 'we' want fisheries to be managed by the professionals and if it ain't broke don't try and fix it.

just saying that if "w" wants to go in 'guns a blazin' to a LWFC meeting and present hard core 'facts' this ain't exactly the study to bring up, they want long-term, as I would want as well. If someone showed me a one week study and wanted something changed because of those numbers I would want a little more data (not knocking this study, i know its just preliminary but at least its something). I would want to see several thousands of fish measured for several years, and I would not measure females during this time as their weights are highly variable during spawning season, and also would definitely want to know the AGE of the fish, because if the fish that were measured last year averaged one year old and 12" as opposed to one year old and 9" this year, then you may have something but without knowing the age of the fish, we can't really assume much

What about CCA Shootout results and Star from 2006-Present

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by "W"

What about CCA Shootout results and Star from 2006-Present

Again, RITA is probably the MOST important influence here. You give those numbers to any statistician, ecologist, biologist, in the world, and show them those very numbers. They will look at them and see that 'something' seems to be happening without even knowing where Big Lake is and could not point out Big Lake on a map of Louisiana. Well, if you give them a little more information such as:

1. the limit was dropped from 25 to 15 during this time
2. a guy fishes the lake a lot and said its because the weirs are blocking off one little bayou into the marsh (that supposedly feed that entire lake even though the entire west side of the lake is marsh)
3. Obama got in office in 2008
4. Osama bin Laden was killed in 2011
5. A freaking Category 4? hurricane came right thru this area in 2005 and completely destroyed and transformed this area and has taken its toll
6. BP Oil spill in 2010
7. A guide that fishes here a lot says their isn't as much pressure on the lake, yet there are twice as many guides on the lake now

Seems pretty obvious to me?

One more thing to add:

People always look for just one answer to a complicated problem, sometimes there isn't just one thing, its a combination of many factors. Maybe the STAR shows the biggest fish caught has gone down, but maybe overall the average weight of the average fish caught has gone up? This can be debated over and over and will never be settled. Just look at duck hunting in the last few years - some people have had the best seasons of their lives recently, whereas others are having terrible seasons, and those people will try and put blame on one particular thing whereas its many things working together.

["W"]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Again, RITA is probably the MOST important influence here. You give those numbers to any statistician, ecologist, biologist, in the world, and show them those very numbers. They will look at them and see that 'something' seems to be happening without even knowing where Big Lake is and could not point out Big Lake on a map of Louisiana. Well, if you give them a little more information such as:

1. the limit was dropped from 25 to 15 during this time
Answer: Only dramatic change in era
2. a guy fishes the lake a lot and said its because the weirs are blocking off one little bayou into the marsh (that supposedly feed that entire lake even though the entire west side of the lake is marsh)
Answer: Only if closed long term
3. Obama got in office in 2008
Voted McCain
4. Osama bin Laden was killed in 2011
Obama killed him with his hands
5. A freaking Category 4? hurricane came right thru this area in 2005 and completely destroyed and transformed this area and has taken its toll
90% of the trout born in this time frame are dead or have been eaten
6. BP Oil spill in 2010
Zero Affect to any state fishery
7. A guide that fishes here a lot says their isn't as much pressure on the lake, yet there are twice as many guides on the lake now
40+ years on the lake fishes 300 days a year.....I would listen to him

Seems pretty obvious to me?

[Salty]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Again, RITA is probably the MOST important influence here. You give those numbers to any statistician, ecologist, biologist, in the world, and show them those very numbers. They will look at them and see that 'something' seems to be happening without even knowing where Big Lake is and could not point out Big Lake on a map of Louisiana. Well, if you give them a little more information such as:

1. the limit was dropped from 25 to 15 during this time
2. a guy fishes the lake a lot and said its because the weirs are blocking off one little bayou into the marsh (that supposedly feed that entire lake even though the entire west side of the lake is marsh)
3. Obama got in office in 2008
4. Osama bin Laden was killed in 2011
5. A freaking Category 4? hurricane came right thru this area in 2005 and completely destroyed and transformed this area and has taken its toll
6. BP Oil spill in 2010
7. A guide that fishes here a lot says their isn't as much pressure on the lake, yet there are twice as many guides on the lake now

Seems pretty obvious to me?

One more thing to add:

People always look for just one answer to a complicated problem, sometimes there isn't just one thing, its a combination of many factors. Maybe the STAR shows the biggest fish caught has gone down, but maybe overall the average weight of the average fish caught has gone up? This can be debated over and over and will never be settled. Just look at duck hunting in the last few years - some people have had the best seasons of their lives recently, whereas others are having terrible seasons, and those people will try and put blame on one particular thing whereas its many things working together.

Katrina was a Cat 3...Rita was a Cat 4???????

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Salty

Katrina was a Cat 3...Rita was a Cat 4???????

Thats why I put the ? mark up there after Cat 4. Wasn't sure, but caused lots of damage but nothing like Katrina! (joking of course!)

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by "W"

I am not going to go much further on this, again I am on the side of putting fisheries biologists in charge of fisheries and not the opinions of a few (this includes guides, potlickers, shrimpers, crabbers, bank fishermen, kayakers, and office fishermen like myself). I will gladly 'right' letters and emails or whatever, just don't go in with 'facts' that are nothing but opinions

[jchief]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

I am not going to go much further on this, again I am on the side of putting fisheries biologists in charge of fisheries and not the opinions of a few (this includes guides, potlickers, shrimpers, crabbers, bank fishermen, kayakers, and office fishermen like myself). I will gladly 'right' letters and emails or whatever, just don't go in with 'facts' that are nothing but opinions

\
W, he be trying to help ya

[Salty]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Thats why I put the ? mark up there after Cat 4. Wasn't sure, but caused lots of damage but nothing like Katrina! (joking of course!)

My storm's bigger than your storm.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Salty

My storm's bigger than your storm.

Everything is bigger over at Big Lake even hurricanes

[Salty]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Everything is bigger over at Big Lake even hurricanes

Apparently.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Again, RITA is probably the MOST important influence here. You give those numbers to any statistician, ecologist, biologist, in the world, and show them those very numbers. They will look at them and see that 'something' seems to be happening without even knowing where Big Lake is and could not point out Big Lake on a map of Louisiana. Well, if you give them a little more information such as:

1. the limit was dropped from 25 to 15 during this time
2. a guy fishes the lake a lot and said its because the weirs are blocking off one little bayou into the marsh (that supposedly feed that entire lake even though the entire west side of the lake is marsh)
3. Obama got in office in 2008
4. Osama bin Laden was killed in 2011
5. A freaking Category 4? hurricane came right thru this area in 2005 and completely destroyed and transformed this area and has taken its toll
6. BP Oil spill in 2010
7. A guide that fishes here a lot says their isn't as much pressure on the lake, yet there are twice as many guides on the lake now

Seems pretty obvious to me?

One more thing to add:

People always look for just one answer to a complicated problem, sometimes there isn't just one thing, its a combination of many factors. Maybe the STAR shows the biggest fish caught has gone down, but maybe overall the average weight of the average fish caught has gone up? This can be debated over and over and will never be settled. Just look at duck hunting in the last few years - some people have had the best seasons of their lives recently, whereas others are having terrible seasons, and those people will try and put blame on one particular thing whereas its many things working together.

Great points. Let me add the over harvesting of the oysters.

Determining what is happening with the fish stocks is generally much easier than ascribing causal factors definitively. Yet, the Callihan thesis seems to indicate that a stock assessment would be determining the impact of the change to the limits rather than any of the possible confounding factors that have been suggested:

Interestingly, Louisiana recently adopted (in 2006) a spatially-explicit management plan for Calcasieu Lake. The premise of this management decision, which included a reduction in daily bag limits and imposition of a slot limit, was to ‘preserve’ the renowned trophy-fishery for spotted seatrout in Calcasieu Lake. However, the decision to enact this regulation was based exclusively on socio-economic factors, rather than the biological status of the subpopulation. In fact, no formal stock assessment was conducted as part of the decision-making process. Thus, the status of the subpopulation (stock) was largely unknown (i.e., overfished or not?) at the time regulations were changed. While perhaps setting a bad precedent for fisheries management (i.e., making a decision based purely on socioeconomic reasons), this situation affords a unique opportunity to evaluate the response of spotted seatrout to a spatially-explicit (estuarine-scale) regulations change (i.e., adaptive management, sensu Hilborn and Walters 1992).

from Callihan PhD thesis LSU 2011 p. 182

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Great points. Let me add the over harvesting of the oysters.

Determining what is happening with the fish stocks is generally much easier than ascribing causal factors definitively. Yet, the Callihan thesis seems to indicate that a stock assessment would be determining the impact of the change to the limits rather than any of the possible confounding factors that has been suggested:

Interestingly, Louisiana recently adopted (in 2006) a spatially-explicit management plan for Calcasieu Lake. The premise of this management decision, which included a reduction in daily bag limits and imposition of a slot limit, was to ‘preserve’ the renowned trophy-fishery for spotted seatrout in Calcasieu Lake. However, the decision to enact this regulation was based exclusively on socio-economic factors, rather than the biological status of the subpopulation. In fact, no formal stock assessment was conducted as part of the decision-making process. Thus, the status of the subpopulation (stock) was largely unknown (i.e., overfished or not?) at the time regulations were changed. While perhaps setting a bad precedent for fisheries management (i.e., making a decision based purely on socioeconomic reasons), this situation affords a unique opportunity to evaluate the response of spotted seatrout to a spatially-explicit (estuarine-scale) regulations change (i.e., adaptive management, sensu Hilborn and Walters 1992).

from Callihan PhD thesis LSU 2011 p. 182

Oyster overharvest would be very good to add

[silvercarp]

Almost all of Louisiana's wildlife or fisheries regulations are set based on socio-economic influences.
That's where you get things like a 16 inch minimum on bowfin, 10 fish recreational limit on flounder (somebody thought there should be one), high-powered metallic cartridges legalized in what used to be a muzzleloader deer season, etc.

["W"]

Big lake limit change was from a moron idiotic stupid brain dead group of people

Who want the greed to them selves and the ones who pushed it don't even keep trout

["W"]

I have 100xs more lake data in these books than any signal guy who ran to baton rouge too cry for 15trout limit

These books have every trip, trout keep, reds keep, locations, tides and moon

Has every trout I tagged and every one recaptured

Has side notes on every trout over7lbs caught

Also has data from other anglers who fished on same days as I